Werdnawerdna

Washington, DC

Thanks for contributing to the Washington article, but can you add a source to the info you added? Thanks. If you need help inserting the reference, let me know.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Rules to edit by

Hi. Please familiarize yourself with two of Wikipedia's official policies:

• Wikipedia:No original research
• Wikipedia:Verifiability

Also you may want to look at the reliable sources guidelines. The policies are non-negotiable rules. They are the reason your edits to Virgin birth of Jesus continue to be reverted. If you can provide reliable sources for the paragraph you keep re-posting, and write it in neutral point of view, then it won't get deleted. Thanks. =Axlq (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your comment on my talk page, but it basically says the same thing as I wrote above. =Axlq (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, Werdnawerdna! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

I would add that it is convention for places of birth in Britain to use the county of the time, i.e. Stretford, Lancashire pre 1 April 1974 and Stretford, Greater Manchester after this date. There are also guidelines on places at WP:PLACE and WP:UKCITIES. Hope that helps! Once again, welcome! -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Crimewatch UK has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Will ^(talk) 19:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Sally Anne Bowman constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Will ^(talk) 19:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

You weren't adding anything. Her being born in Sutton in 1987 is already there. You're pushing on several articles to have a non-standard "London Borough of Foo" added to pages where it doesn't matter. I suggest that, in order to not get caught up again, to read the above links that were given. Will ^(talk) 19:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And what about the first one? If the non-standard spelling "sqeeze" is proper usage in this context there should be some explanation of this. —Random832 20:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Squeeze should normally have a 'u' in it, like the one I added in Crimewatch UK. The only exception would be a brand name that uses an incorrect spelling as its name. I corrected a spelling error - now I'm being told that I'm wrong, and my correction has been reverted back. This is an encyclopedia. It is an educational website - it should not be showing incorrect spellings. Lots of people make fun of this site because of its errors. I'm improving many pages by correcting errors, and people are reverting them to being wrong again - why?

from Werdnawerdna

The Good Life

Please stop your edits of The Good Life article. Surbiton is, by the people who live there, thought of as Surrey, and your edits insisting on the precise legality and unnecessary, especially for an article on a TV series. The programme always states it to be in Surrey, and it's something that's important for the show's suburban setting. The Government reforms of the 1960s and 1970s with regards to countries were largely ignored by many, and insisting upon them strikes me as a bit POV. If people go to the Surbiton article they will see where it officially is, and there is no need to state this on an article about a TV series.--UpDown (talk) 08:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Arthur C. Clarke

NNDB is not regarded as a reliable source, and even if it were, their quote is unsourced, refers to admission of one encounter only, which does not necessarily make Clarke bisexual, and it's clear he didn't want to talk about it anyway. The other site is also unsourced. We do not "out" people here, even if they're dead, on the basis of wishy-washy synthesis of unreliable sources. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing data

Please have a look at the Policies and guidelines quoted above in Jza84's welcome message. You will see that where materieal is added it needs to be verifiable. Online references are ideal as any wikipedia user can check them out for themselves. If references are offline (eg your use of a reference to Panorama in your contribution to Chalvey) maximum evidence should be provided, eg date of broadcast so that users can follow the reference up for themselves. Thanks. Grblundell (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Another comment; instead of adding a link to a geneology website, it's better to add it as a reference using <ref> ref tags. If you want to find out how to do so, just ask me or see this page. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 19:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic categories

Hi. I've undone most of your additions of the Eurasian category; remember that categories are not exempt from WP:V and WP:BLP. If you feel like adding them again, please make sure that the article contains a well-reference assertion that the subject's ethnicity is relevant to their notability. Thanks, --John (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

White pride

You added unsourced original reseach to the White pride article. This has been reverted. If you can find sources for the information you were trying to add, then please do contribute them. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Anwar Ibrahim. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. - Bob K | Talk 19:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent deaths category

Hi. I noticed that you have added Category:Recent deaths to a couple of articles. However this is not necessary as they are included in the category automatically when the {{recent death}} template is used. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Knoxville, Tennessee has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Washburnmav (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent deaths sidebar

Seems like you don't know the format for the Recent Deaths sidebar, it goes like this:

*[[month xx|xx]]: [[name]]

Also, please use the pipe trick when there is a parenthesized term following the name (i.e. [[John Public (politician)|John Public]] )

Thanks! —Mr. Matté (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Username policy#Similar usernames

Hi, You probably weren't aware, but we already have a user User:Werdna. As per Wikipedia:Username_policy#Similar usernames, could I trouble you to pick another name? You can keep using the same account, but to avoid confusion, best to have it renamed - just visit Wikipedia:Changing username. Thanks, Ben Aveling 11:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Werdanwerdna. I think your name is okay but it would probably be a good idea to put a disambiguation note on the userpage saying that you're not the administrator Werdna whose user page may be found "over there". I feel this would satisfy most people who may be inclined to make you change your account. As an example, there is an administrator here called User:Bduke and earlier in the year a new user arrived called User:Bduke2. So I put a note on his userpage to clarify for other editors that he was a different Bduke, and so he wouldn't have to change his name. You could also put a similar note on your user page User:Werdnawerdna so that there is no confusion in future. Just a suggestion. Cheers, Sarah 15:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Peter Roget

Where'd you find Herefordshire as place of death? Can you cite it if true? I find books saying West Malvern is where he was on vacation, but maybe he stepped across the border... Dicklyon (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You can reply here. I reverted again, as the factoid you added was contradicted by the cited source. If you want to make a correction, you need to cite the source of it. Dicklyon (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I had already added a link to the birth and death indexes in the external links section. It states death registered in Ledbury, which is in Herefordshire. I put it under external links rather than against his name because the indexes also prove his son's lifespan and grandson's birth year as well. The official records are a higher standard of proof than any other source - better than any article. Births, deaths and marriages are, by law, registered in the area that they took place in.Werdnawerdna (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

External links tend to be pretty ephemeral, because nobody can see what they're there for. Go ahead and add a citation, which will then last. I've editted it to also include the fact that he was vacationing in West Malvern at the time (I supposed he crossed over the border to a doctor or hospital for something?). Dicklyon (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Proof of age

Hi Werdnawerdna, I have revised your recent addition to WP:Death by age in order to preserve the neutrality of the guideline. Also, signatures should not be included on the project page. If you want to give your opinion, you can write about it on the discussion page. Sebwite (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Mark Boxer

Your "place of death" entry for Mark Boxer raises a broader issue. Boxer died at home, in Brentford, Middlesex - however, the death was registered at Hounslow, Middelesex. I wonder which is of more interest/value to readers? ExLibre (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

NNDB

Hi Werdnawerdna. I've seen that you've made reference on several talk pages that NNDB lists someone's sexuality as one thing or another. Please be aware that within Wikipedia standards, NNDB is not considered a reliable source and cannot be used as a reference in articles, or as argument for inclusion of facts in articles. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

LGBT

Just as a point of information, regarding this edit, pedophilia is not considered LGBT, due mostly to the fact that pedophilia is a power issue, not an issue of a persons relationships or gender identity. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Your claim on my talk page that Happiness is not an LGBT-related film is incorrect. Although it is fictional, its portrayal of a dedicated homosexual pedophile is accurate. The pedophile character in that film used planned predation to target young boys only (one victim is shown, the other is referred to later). If he were straight, it would have been impossible for him to do what he did - no heterosexual man could bugger a male of any age under any circumstances. A straight man would not have a motive to do such a thing in the first place. No matter how sadistic and power-crazed a straight man is, he would not even consider committing homosexual acts against anyone. Whilst many straight men deliberately commit power-based abuses, they never use the method of buggering a male - only homosexual and bisexual males are capable of that, due to the biological basis of acheiving an erection. In order for a male to be the active participant in a homosexual act, he has to be sexually excited by another male; that requires him to be either homo or bi. The fact that pedophilia is a power abuse issue does not preclude the fact that pedophiles are hetero, homo or bi, just like the rest of the population. Rape is a form of power abuse, but rapists are hetero, homo or bi; hetero rapists only target female victims, homo rapists only target male victims and bi rapists target both genders. Pedophilia and rape are both sexual power abuse moral and legal violations; no-one would claim that rape and rapists cannot be LGBT - therefore many pedophiles are LGBT by definition. All pederasts (which the character in Happiness is) are simultaneously homosexual/bisexual and pedophilic. The claim that no pedophiles are LGBT, or that pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality, is a lie. It is propaganda, used by the LGBT community, in an attempt to unjustly clear themselves of any blame. Only a small minority of people are pedophiles. It is not in dispute that pedophilia is a perversion much more common in men than women. It is equally true that pedophilia is much more common in LGBT men than in straight men. The statistics by orientation of pedophiles known to the authorities, along with the proportion of victims that are of each gender, proves that absolutely. One of the main characters in Happiness is a pederast, which, by definition, is an LGBT person. Therefore, Happiness is an LGBT-related film. Werdnawerdna (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You are WAAY off base here. I invite you to read pedophilia and pederasty to determine the differences. Also read Men who have sex with men and LGBT.

Some things to note:

• Your statement about the statistic that pedophilia is much more common in LGBT men than in straight men is false. A quick reference to back that up:

There is no support for the popular contention that pedophilia is more often homosexual than heterosexual. - Money, John (1988), Gay, Straight, and In-Between: The Sexology of Erotic Orientation, Oxford University Press, p. 155, ISBN 0195054075

• Nowhere in the pedophilia article is homosexuality mentioned. In fact, gender isn't mentioned much at all.
• The LGBT community does not accept pedophilia as a part the community. There are religious conservatives who try to equate being gay (men in relationships with men, self-identified and consensual) with being a pedophile (usually non-consensual sex (not relationships) with pre-pubescent children). By definition, though, pedophilia is not part of the community.
• The LGBT community is self-identified and is based on a person's sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

To the movie at hand, Happiness (1998 film) has a storyline about a pedophile. That's one story about a rapist. The movie in no way shows a consensual relationship between men, and is therefore not "LGBT-related".

Regardless of your statements like "No matter how sadistic and power-crazed a straight man is, he would not even consider committing homosexual acts against anyone.", you are off-base and incorrect. I urge you to find other topics to edit, and/or to learn more about these topics before continuing to edit articles on them. If you must reply, you can do so here to keep the conversation together. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The sex offender character in Happiness is a pedophile, a pederast, a rapist and LGBT - he is all four simultaneously. I am aware of the definitions of each; he definitely fits the descriptions of all four of them. The fact that the vast majority of pedophiles are male and that over a third of known victims of pedophilia are male, proves that, among homosexual men, there is a higher incidence of pedophilia, as the large majority of people are straight. One of the main factors the authorities (in my country at least) use to determine a known pedophile's risk of reoffending is his orientation. Homosexual and bisexual pedophiles have been proved to have a significantly higher recidivism rate that heterosexual pedophiles, the police and social services know that, and use that fact as one of the main determining factors in judging the level of risk to children presented by any individual pedophile who is not incarcerated. Regardless of whether or not the LGBT community, or individual LGBT people, 'accept pedophilia as part of the community', there are pedophiles within that community, and at a significantly higher incidence than among heterosexuals. The above administrator claims that being gay is 'men in relationships with men, self-identified and consensual'. However, many homosexual men have one-night stands, cruise for encounters with strangers in public places, sleep around etc. without having relationships. Although some straight people do likewise with people of the opposite sex, such behaviour/lifestyle is undoubtedly much more common among homosexual and bisexual men than heterosexual men or women. It is a fact that, on average, homosexual men are considerably more promiscuous than straight men, confirmed by surveys, and the rates of HIV infection, many times higher in incidence among homosexual men than among heterosexuals of either gender. Many actively homosexual people are in denial of their orientation, many others know they are homosexual, but claim to be heterosexual. Such people are definitely LGBT, even though they don't self-identify; they are not, in any sense, straight. Homosexual men raping straight males of various ages exists, as does homosexual men raping those of the same orientation as themselves. Therefore, many LGBT people do not fit into any, let alone all three, criteria which SatyrTN claims that they do. To claim that 'pedophilia is not part of the community' is, at best, wishful thinking or naivety, at worst a big black lie. There are many active pederasts who self-identify as homosexual or bisexual, some of whom proudly proclaim their LGBT identity. Some of them engage in sexual activity with adults and children, some rape as well as having consensual sex. The idea that there is a metaphorical, bold, definitive line between LGBT people (all of whom only have consenting sex within loving relationships with adults), and pedophiles (all of whom target both genders of children and never have sex with adults), is ludicrous. Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, Dennis Nilsen: all undoubtedly LGBT, yet none of them come close to fitting in with SatyrTN's rose-tinted, narrowly-defined description of LGBT people. Werdnawerdna (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay - you're way over the line. You're labeling people in ways that are not appropriate, by Wikipedia policies (see WP:BLP) and by the outside world. The fact that you equate pedophilia with homosexuality is extremely bothering. I urge you to consider leaving LGBT articles alone. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Werdnawerdna, nothing you have said is supported by the data. Men are very opportunistic about sex. They can get erections for no reason, or just by thoughts/fantasy of partner-free masturbation. Erection and orgasm are involuntary physical responses. If you rub it, they will come. Men who have no particular sexual inclination toward other men get "service" from willing gays just out of urge, have sex or rape in prison when females aren't available, and very commonly have sex with men for money. All of this is very well-documented. Straight guys who've preyed on boys are very well-documented, too. If sending your mind somewhere else to be able to perform with a fully-developed man can get you through to orgasm, how much easier must it be to imagine an undeveloped boy has feminine qualities? Pedophiles are opportunists, and men are put in positions of trust with boys much more often, girls and parents of girls are more suspicious of men. Pedophilia is commonly over-extended, btw. It refers only to pre-adolescents, where while it may not be legal to act on, attraction to adolescents (the preference is called ephebophilia) is universal and natural. 18 years is an arbitrary cutoff that approximates emotional maturity and prohibits sexual activity to persons who are by all scientific criteria ready for sex. You don't know anything about what you're saying. -- AvatarMN (talk) 07:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The above paragraph reads like the propagandistic fantasy of a promiscuous ephebophilic homosexual supremacist. Hopefully, AvatarMN is just trolling, rather than expressing his genuine beliefs. What I stated is very much supported by the statistical data of known sex offenders regarding the actual orientation (regardless of what they do or do not 'self-identify as') of perpetrators. It is confirmed by the disproportionately high number of young male victims among those whose victimisers are/were adult male offenders. Whilst many (not all) men are opportunistic regarding sex, most heterosexual men do not engage in sexual activity with males. No heterosexual male can be sexually excited by another male, no matter how much rubbing is involved - sexual stimulation is more psychological than physical. Straight males do not seek sexual activity with other males. To state that straight men very often have sex with men for money is a massive exaggeration. Most men never do that, even once, in their entire lifetime. It is a minority of males (more often severely disadvantaged, vulnerable adolescents who do not know the risks, who have been coerced into it by predatory adult homosexuals, rather that adult men who do it out of free choice) who have sex with men for money. AvatarMN does not name any straight men who have sexually preyed on boys (because there never have been any), despite his claim of there being many well-documented cases. I have named the very well-documented, undeniable cases of Dahmer (homosexual), Gacy (bisexual) and Nilsen (homosexual), all of whom are contenders for being the most evil person who ever lived. They were all extremely sadistic, predatory, LGBT, sexually-offending, serial killers. Those men who rape other men and/or have consensual sex with men in prison do so because of their own homosexuality or bisexuality. Heterosexual men do not want sexual contact with any other male, of any description, under any circumstances, in any location (even if they are in prison for years). The fact that, in prison, homosexual acts are common, and that a significant proprotion of such acts are rape, proves that there are a disproportionately high number of LGBT people in prison, which in turn proves that LGBT people are considerably more likely to commit criminal offences which result in them being incarcerated. Whilst some pedophiles are opportunists, many are predators who dedicate their lives to sexually abusing children, whilst endeavouring to remain undetected by the authorities and their victims' families. Many pedophiles use a great deal of planning, time, money, resources etc. in finding, luring, grooming and abusing their victims. Many pedophiles do that over a period of weeks, months or even years. Many choose to find employment with children to gain access to their future victims. It is not rare for pedophiles to seek out and choose their victim first, and to go to the extent of convincingly pretending to be normal, and marrying the prospective victim's mother, in order to gain frequent unaccompanied access to the child, before beginning the sexual abuse of the child. Anyone claiming that homosexual acts between adult men and underage boys is universal and natural presents a great danger to vulnerable adolescent boys, and to society in general. If anyone is so inclined, and acts upon it, the police would be very interested in trying to stop him, and would have very good reason to do so. As I've proved on this page, I know a great deal about the truth of the subject. What I have written is true. Werdnawerdna (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not even reading that crap, after the first couple of lines. Take a look at Wikipedia policies, and the articles Satyr pointed you to. The stuff you're saying is not true, as shown by the citations in these articles and many other sources. (That you think male sexual response is MORE mental than physical is fucking hysterical. I hope you're a woman who's lived a very sheltered life.) The stuff you want to add violates Wikipedia policies, as Satyr has also detailed very well. You clearly have an axe to grind, and you are not going to be allowed to make the edits you want to make. Save yourself some trouble and don't try. Find some other topics to edit, or go away. -- AvatarMN (talk) 05:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

WerdnaWerdna, your personal belief that something is true doesn't justify putting a category on a Wikipedia article on that basis. Placing of categories must follow the NPOV policy: that is, not only something that you believe is true, but that is "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute". Clearly, a statement that pedophilia is a form of LGBT does not fit that definition; therefore categories cannot be placed on Wikipedia articles on that basis, regardless of the degree of conviction with which you believe it to be true. Also, I don't think we put categories such as sexual orientation on biographies unless the person themself has stated that they are in that category – at least for biographies of living people; I'm not sure with dead people. Within the text of an article, statements may be able to be made with hedges, prose attributions, balancing with statements from alternative points of view etc. A category tag doesn't give room for that sort of thing, so there are more limitations as to what can be expressed with categories. It's not enough to know that someone was a homosexual; to put a category on the article, you have to know that there's no serious dispute that the person was a homosexual. Since concerns have been raised about this, it would probably be a good idea for you to suggest categories on article talk pages and discuss them first rather than just adding them to articles. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What I added is not merely my personal belief, it is actual fact. I didn't state that all pedophilia is LGBT, but that same-gender pedophila is. There are no heterosexuals in NAMBLA. The individual does not have to have stated themself that they are LGBT in order to fit the category; the other way they can qualify is that they are definitely LGBT. The case which is being debated at length on ANI about me is about Jeffrey Dahmer, who died years before Wikipedia was founded; BLP issues are irrelevant to the correspondence about him. Dahmer was, without a shadow of a doubt, 100% homosexual; there is no valid 'alternative point of view'. Claiming Dahmer was straight, or of unknown orientation, is as valid as claiming that the weather in Antarctica is always very hot. In some cases I have suggested categories on talk pages. Werdnawerdna (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarification, since the AN/I discussion has concluded: The case was first opened because of concerns about your username and expanded when a variety of editors looked at your contribution history. You misrepresent the issue on the Dahmer article and have never seemed to understand that the problem was well beyond "was he or wasn't he?" When a wide number of editors looked at your history, many concerns were raised, including the use and defense of what are now considered perjoratives such as mulatto and quadroon (which are not by any stretch of the imagination endorsed anthropological classifications), what seems to be an endorsement of eugenics on a page about disabled people, racism - not solely about sexuality, race and prison, a variety of issues related to attitudes about sexual identity and statements that were made over a number of articles that were considered homophobic by a variety of editors reviewing them, rape and an attack upon what you perceive to be a feminist agenda. It goes on and on, and was so far beyond Dahmer that it became a moot point. Your attempt to justify your attitudes and actions only served to make it worse. A lot of people actually were willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and try and work with you on this, until you made it quite clear you were invested in your viewpoints and did not see why they were objectionable. Again, Dahmer was only a minute part of the problems that were raised. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

While I like to see that there are sufficient warnings before users are blocked on Wikipedia, in keeping with the open nature of the project, I do have to note that after I contributed to the AN/I discussion about your edits, I thought things over further and would have gone back to strike out some of my words if the discussion had not already been closed. When I saw the additional evidence that had been added to AN/I, I was even further convinced. Considering the overall pattern of your behaviour, I think that comments C2 and C3 listed by Jehochman at AN/I actually are problematic (soapboxing; lack of acknowledgement of the existence of multiple points of view), and given the lack of acknowledgement of problems, lack of expressed intention to change behaviour, and continued soapboxing in the comments posted by you at AN/I, I feel that the requirement for warnings can be considered to be already met.

Rather than asserting and re-asserting your personal beliefs as you're doing here, (calling them "fact"), to edit Wikipedia you would have to follow the basic principles of the core policies WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. It's an open project, but participation *does* require meeting expected behavioural and editing standards. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Range Block

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. -- Avi (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Avi, why was that range block put in place, and by whom. I am investigating this account's editing in response to a question left on my talk page.[1] Jehochman ^Talk 11:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Heads Up On One Of Your Minor Edits

Heads up on one of your minor edits. If you have time, please look into this and see if you'd like to do anything about it. Thanks so very much. VictorC (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, Werdnawerdna. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 12:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Topic Ban

Per recommendations and consensus at WP:ANI# Werdnawerdna, you are now regulated under a topic ban from any LGBT-related articles, which also includes personal attacks or slurs against any demographic, which extends to both discussions and edit summaries. Any violation of such shall result in a block of no less than 24 hours for the first offense, escalating to an indefinite block for repeated violations. Your continued misuse of commentary, edit summaries and discussions, which includes demographic slurs and soapboxing, has grown tiresome. The topic ban will be reviewed in one week, and again in one month to determine if it is effective and if other measures are needed. Thank you, seicer | talk | contribs 16:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite block

{{gblock|creating a hostile editing environment with homophobic and racist comments with no reason to believe you'll stop|indefinte}}--Tznkai (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Werdnawerdna (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please explain why I have been blocked only five minutes after the matter was resolved with a topic ban. I did not make any edits during those five minutes, so what changed, in such a short space of time? In addition, how do you justify blocking me indefinitely, when I had been merely warned that a first block would be very short, and had never been blocked before?

Decline reason:

This block has been placed to prevent disruption or the creation of a hostile editing environment. Your unblock request fails to address those concerns. See the guide to appealing a block for further advice. The blocking administrator is invited to answer your questions, but those questions do not constitute grounds for unblocking at this time. — Jehochman ^Talk 17:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note to anyone reviewing the unblock, please ongoing review WP:ANI#Werdnawerdna--Tznkai (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, can please you explain why you still wrongly believe me to be a sockpuppet - I honestly am not. You claimed on ANI that the my user contributions and account is similar to that of a sockpuppeteer. That cannot be right, as I do not even know who the sockpuppeteer is. I am not a meatpuppet either - I decided what edits to make, no-one had any influence on me. I have never talked about Wikipedia editing with anyone in real life. It was you who first brought the matter of me and my account to AFI. You refuse to unblock me, partly because you still wrongly believe I am a sockpuppet. Can't you compare the articles I edited, and the times I edited them, to the edits of the sockpuppeteer? Surely that would show significant differences between my accounts and his, seeing as we are completely separate people? We must have edited different articles, in different ways, with different focuses. Please look again. In addition, is it normal to indefinetely block a person who has never been blocked before, nor even been warned he may be blocked? Werdnawerdna (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

While I wish to believe that everything you say is true, there is no practical way to verify it. Many sockpuppeteers and banned users will say exactly what you say now. We therefore must look at the behavior. Looking at your editing pattern, it is problematic, for the reasons stated at ANI, and you have given us no reasons to unblock the account. You have not acknowledged problems that are widely perceived by members of the Wikipedia community, nor have you provided assurances that the behavior will change. Therefore, the block is valid even if there is no sock puppetry (though the increased probability of sock puppetry is a factor that may reduce the amount of good faith we are willing to assume). If you address the behavior problem, that would be the most productive path forward. Jehochman ^Talk 21:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I've had a fair bit to do with GarryGazza/Bruce/Premier/related accounts and for what its worth, I don't believe that you're one of his socks. Garry is the "Australian politics troll" and he specifically targets Australian political bios and related Australian political articles with anti-semitic rubbish and I can't see any edits in your contribs that remind me of Garry at all. If you're on the same ISP as Garry then you're using a very large ISP with many editors, which is actually the reason we have had so much trouble shutting Gary down in the past, so I don't think that you should be tied to Garry without some pretty convincing evidence. That said, I find your commentaries highly offensive and I don't believe they have any place on Wikipedia in any form at all. And so I support the block at this time for reasons not related to the sock issue. You can appeal the block but I don't think you are likely to have much such success after such an extensive ANI discussion and the jaw-dropping commentaries you posted to that discussion. Perhaps you could appeal in a few months and if you are able to demonstrate that you have learned about our policies and are willing to stay away from sexuality topics and edit appropriately you might be able to convince the community to give you a second chance. However, in all honesty, you might find Conservapedia more up your alley. Sarah 23:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

FAO Admins, epecially Jehochman and those who have dealt with the prolific sockpuppeteer in London, England: I am not being judged fairly, owing to false accusations of puppetry against me. Before I address concerns and issues regarding my editing, I need to be acquitted of such unjust suspicion. Only then can matters regarding my editing be addressed without me being handicapped by supposed previous wrongdoing. As Avraham stated, he imposed the range block to stop Bruce/Garry/Pioner etc, not me. He also granted my account an exemption to the block owing to the fact he rightly does not believe me to be a sockpuppet.

I have looked at the contributions of some of the accounts and IP numbers that caused the problems that led to Avraham blocking the range that my computer happens to be within. I am not part of any sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry or conspiracy; I am independent of every other account and user. I cannot understand anyone believing me to be in any way involved with the sockpuppeteer in question, whose behavior on Wikipedia I do not agree with. I noticed some massive differences between him/her and me:

• Said multi-user has an obsession with 'Jewishness', an issue he uses as a means to insult people, whereas I do not. Many biographies on Wikipedia are of people who are either Jewish or have Jewish descent - I have edited a few, but only made minor improvements. I never edited any of them in a biased or politicized way, nor did I cause any problems on those articles.

• That person has dedicated focuses on Lithuanians and Soviets, chess players and Australians. I have rarely, if ever, edited anything about the first two, and have only edited a few Australian articles, to which I only made good, minor edits.

• I did not see any articles that both he and I edited - I have different interests, focuses and styles of editing than him.

• User made a huge number of personal attacks, including many to the same person, repeatedly calling him a traitor. I have only been accused of one personal attack, which was on my talk page, in response to an unsolicited, horrible message being posted on there by someone I had no previous contact with. I never called anyone a traitor.

• He often makes errors in spelling, typos, grammar and failure to use capital letters where needed. I rarely make such mistakes.

• He frequently edited Lithuanian Wikipedia, which I have never visited - I do not understand the Lithuanian language at all.

• He often leaves messages on other users' talk pages. I have only left messages on two users' talk pages, just one on each.

• He is a persistent troll and vandal. I have never been guilty of either of those kinds of violations. In fact, I have reverted/removed vandalism a few times.

• He engages in edit-warring - I do not.

• He uses fake explanations in his edit summaries, whereas my edit summaries correctly describe said edits.

• He likes to 'move the goalposts' and otherwise try to confuse people. I do not do those kind of things.

• He deletes substantial portions of articles without justification or explanation. The only deleting I did was removing vandalism, nonsense, unencyclopedic trivia, untruths, duplications and irrelevant material. In each of those cases, I explained myself clearly in each edit summary.

Please consider the above truthful explanation to clear me of the unfair allegation that I am a sock. It seems likely that some administrators are incorrectly assuming the worst about me, because they are under the false impression that I had previously caused trouble under another identity and have returned to do more harm. The truth of the matter is that I am actually a completely separate user without previous history.

I shall, quite soon, submit a new request on here to be unblocked, partly based on details I have not yet submitted anywhere. Please deal with this issue first, if possible. Werdnawerdna (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You are not blocked for sock puppetry. That issue is a red herring. You may ignore it completely, because arguing about that will not get you unblocked. You've been blocked for your own editing; nothing else. Jehochman ^Talk 19:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Support for Indefinite block

This kind of contribution [[2]] alone would justify a permanent block: it is just a POV rant and adds nothing useful to the subject matter:

The photo of a DS child using a power tool to assemble a bookcase should be replaced with a more appropriate picture of a sufferer of this horrific, incurable, lifelong condition. The large majority of DS adults, let alone children, are incapable of sucessfully assembling furniture. Did the child pictured actually succeed in completing the assembly? If he did, he is an unusual case, not representative of DS people in general. It gives the misleading impression that DS sufferers are productive and capable of carrying out tasks which many normal adults are unable to do, in comparison to the reality of them being uncontrolled wrecks (yes, I have had the misfortune of encountering them in person). Some people may even interpret the picture as: "we must create far more Down Syndrome children, they are more capable than the rest of us!". The fact is that DS sufferers are severely retarded and cannot live normal lives - most never learn to do basic things such as reading and writing properly, because they are incapable of doing so. There are tests to determine whether or not a foetus has DS, which enables their prenatal diagnosis and termination. The article is already biased against the necessary implementation of eugenics; the picture makes that situation significantly worse. If anyone disagrees with what I've typed, don't use ridiculous reductio ad Hitlerum statements, or the scientifically disproven 'everyone's equal' left-wing dogma. Answer this: can anyone name even one DS person who has (had) a productive or useful life; not had a life of suffering, severe disability and been a massive burden to those around him/her? Do the authorities allow DS adults to adopt children? Why not, if they are the same as the rest of us? It astounds me that some of the same people who complain of high taxation also demand the massive increase in births of severely disabled children by preventing their abortion. Do they really not see that the large-scale production of incurable severely disabled children contributes massively to the need for so much taxation?Werdnawerdna (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Excalibur (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know two people with DS who lead a productive life without massive burden, and can assemble bookcases etc better than my mother can. They both have jobs, and they're both normal people who I have fun talking to. The above piece you quoted is nothing more than a political rant, you were right to bring it to our attention. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

New appeal against block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Werdnawerdna (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did not intend to 'disrupt' or 'create a hostile environment'. I admit that I made mistakes. If the account is unblocked, my editing will improve. Should this request be successful, I do not intend to violate any Wikipedia policies; I will be more careful. The imposition of an indefinite block is unjustified; it is not in line with policy. Accounts are not typically issued an indef without shorter blocks being imposed first - I had never been blocked before. Indefs are meant for accounts used solely or primarily for violations and bad purposes. My account never fitted that description. In addition, consensus was not reached on ANI, prior to the imposition of the indef. Please consider lifting the block. Werdnawerdna (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have been blocked for exhibiting a disruptive level of racism, homophobia and prejudice in your contributions, in violation of WP:NPOV, and there has been general agreement with that at the AN/I discussion cited below. The indefinite block is justified to prevent further disruption until you demonstrate clearly that you understand what the specific problems with your conduct (as outlined in the AN/I discussion) are and that you intend to cease with that conduct. —  Sandstein  16:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Third appeal

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Werdnawerdna (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I do understand that many Wikipedians, including several admins, object to some of my edits. If unblocked, I will not repeat said problematic additions. Please reconsider cancelling the block

Decline reason:

I agree with consensus on the ANI noticeboard, and the other admins who have reviewed your previous requests. Your homophobic comments were creating a create a hostile working environment, and so I think it's in the best interests of Wikipedia that you aren't unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Fourth appeal

unblock|It is unnecessary for the block imposed on me to remain. If I am unblocked, I will make many positive, correct and relevant edits. I will do that whilst keeping within Wikipedia guidelines. I will not disrupt the site, nor create hostility. I will not repeat the edits that have been pointed out at ANI. My future editing will be significantly better that my edits so far. Please give me a chance to be an asset to the site, which I promise to be. Werdnawerdna (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Note to any admin reviewing this unblock request: the AN/I discussion has since been archived here. Maralia (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Due to excessive block appeals, I've removed the last block template and protected the page from further misuse. Any administrator is welcome to review this action. seicer | talk | contribs 23:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)